Question

Do you agree with the supreme court that the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996 was a violation of constitutional rights? Why or why not?

Answer 1

It enlarges the proscriptions against assisting in the commission of various terrorist crimes. It authorizes the regulation of fundraising by foreign organizations associated with terrorist activities. It adjusts the Foreign Assistance Act to help isolate countries who support terrorists and to bolster counterterrorism efforts in those who oppose them. "

Habeas rights aren’t entirely unshakable; President Abraham Lincoln famously suspended them during the Civil War, and whether or not a similar suspension was warranted in terrorism cases after the Sept. 11 attacks was central to the challenges brought by detainees held in Guantánamo Bay. But these are exceptional circumstances; for more prosaic criminal proceedings, states provide post-conviction processes for demonstrating procedural failings in a trial. After that, a prisoner may bring a habeas petition to a federal court, which has traditionally had the power to overturn a state conviction. “Habeas lies to enforce the right of personal liberty,” Justice William Brennan wrote in 1963; “when that right is denied and a person confined, the federal court has the power to release him.”
Supporters of this approach point out that state judges, who often face re-election bids, may feel more pressure to push habeas aside in the name of being tough on crime than federal judges, whose lifetime appointments insulate them from politics. State courts also have far higher caseloads, leaving them with less time and fewer resources to spend on habeas petitions, which often leads to summary denials.